MaxxLange: <sentricleclub> That pawn structure is OK against the Closed Sicilian, but I wouldn't play it on move 3 there. I'd play Nc6

You can aim for the reversed English "Botvinnik System" with the center pawns as in your diagram, Nc6, g6, Bg7, Nge7, and 0-0. Then eventually Be6 and maybe Qd7, maybe Rb8 playing for b5 lever, or preparing play in the center, or preparing f5.

It's a decent Black system to learn against English or 1 Nf3 stuff, too.

i want to play the grand prix against everyone but i find 1.e4 c5 2.f4 d5 et al to be strong for black and 1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 e6 with ...Nge7, ...d5 etc to be good for black as well...nothing to attack without a ...g6

How about 4 Bd3 instead of 4 Bc4? In the regular Grand Prix with Bb5, wasn't that Bd3 idea a big try against the ...Nd4 line, a few years ago? You follow with c3, Bc2, Nf3, 0-0, and d3 or d4, in some order, and how does Black justify his play?

MaxxLange: seconding Watson's opening books - I have the first two volumes, which have been of immense help in my chess studies. I've been inspired to play lots of main line openings by them, that I had previously feared.

MaxxLange: Example: I scored 2 easy wins at the last weekend tourney I went to, using Watson's explanation of the 1 e4 c6 2 Nc3 d5 3 Nf3 system against the Caro-Kann. He explains with such fairness and lucidity how Black should play to equalize against this sideline, and what can happen if Black strays from the path.

I was in the 'B' class, and the opponents were just clueless against that line. They did not even play ..Bg4, they just went into their autopilot CK development

nescio: <Conrad93><parisattack>
I don't necessarily agree. A lot depends on the situation and your own style. Smyslov had a quiet style and played the Closed Sicilian like the virtuoso he was. Spassky used it in the candidates matches in 1968 to deal with the aggression of Geller and Larsen.

Karpov played it exclusively in his youth but when he reached grandmaster level he found that it didn't have enough bite to beat his colleagues and switched to the open Sicilians.

Spassky continued to use it, remarkably enough against weaker opposition, but he was so talented, he could create an attack from the quietest positions.

If you need a win or a draw against a strong player you should only play the Closed Siciiian if you have a lot of experience with it. Otherwise you will have more chances with your usual set-ups where your knowledge may well be equal to that of your opponent. I don't believe in the idea that strong players always know the opening better and anyway, you don't have to win a game in the opening and very rarely do.

nescio: <Conrad93: This is better for players who would rather play chess>

Everyone does

<than play out 20 moves of a prepared line.>

But that never happens lower than the grandmaster level. We pick up opening knowledge from studying master games and trying to figure out the ideas behind their opening moves. That way you don't have know the exact sequences, but can apply those ideas also if the opponent does something different which always happens.

<I was playing an 1800 and got a winning position>

Why not? I have no wish to insult you but at that level it hardly matters what you play in the opening because both players will invariably commmit a lot of mistakes afterwards.
Just as an example I'll quote you again:

<If he plays, 8...e5 9. Qg3 should give him a headache.>

I think he doesn't even need any aspirin because he can just play 9...Nf6 10.Qxg7 Rg8 and White has achieved exactly nothing.

parisattack: <nescio: <Conrad93><parisattack> I don't necessarily agree. A lot depends on the situation and your own style. Smyslov had a quiet style and played the Closed Sicilian like the virtuoso he was. Spassky used it in the candidates matches in 1968 to deal with the aggression of Geller and Larsen....If you need a win or a draw against a strong player you should only play the Closed Siciiian if you have a lot of experience with it. Otherwise you will have more chances with your usual set-ups where your knowledge may well be equal to that of your opponent>

I fully agree the TOP priority is playing something you know well, feel comfortable with, also. Smyslov's games were among the first I studied and I also saw the Spassky-Geller games.

For Example -I play 1. b4 a lot nowadays. Not a particularly good first move - but I've studied it for years and played it perhaps in 100 games. I feel comfortable with it and know the lines reasonably well (for a patzer!).

The CS is solid but still fairly aggressive - and White gets the K-side which is by nature a bit more sensitive than the Q-side.

Conrad93: <For Example -I play 1. b4 a lot nowadays. Not a particularly good first move - but I've studied it for years and played it perhaps in 100 games. I feel comfortable with it and know the lines reasonably well (for a patzer!).>

Even a patzer might gain the advantage over you if you play such a strange flank opening, but at least it's better than 1. g4.

NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply.
Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous,
and 100% free--plus, it
entitles you to features otherwise unavailable.
Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should
login now.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.

No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.

No personal attacks against other members.

Nothing in violation of United States law.

No posting personal information of members.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page.
This forum is for this specific opening and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or
this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages
posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.